Today, Judge Cacheris released a ruling affirming his recent decision in U.S. v. Danielczyk declaring a ban on direct corporate donations to candidates unconstitutional.

In response, the Center for Competitive Politics released the following statement:

“Judge Cacheris has rightly concluded that the First Amendment does not allow the government to discriminate against certain unpopular types of speakers by denying them the right to contribute to the candidates and causes of their choice,” said Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Politics. “Just as ‘Pitchfork’ Ben Tillman’s legacy of Jim Crow laws has been repudiated, so has the Tillman Act that sought to stifle unwelcome political speech.”

Will someone please visit Public Integrity to determine what alien life forms are drafting its briefs?

I am personally gobsmacked at what I have seem out of the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity section this last two weeks. For starters, apparently their lawyers could write an entire brief on the law relating to corporate contributions to candidates and NOT CITE LEADING AUTHORITY ON THEIR SIDE. This litigation, US v. Danielczyk, involved businessmen who reimbursed employees with corporate funds for making contributions – which is a big no-no. The corporate contributions aspect of the charges is but a fraction of the total case, so the prosecution would proceed even with the judge’s holding – that corporate contributions are protected under Citizens United – left undisturbed.

For casual readers of campaign finance lore, you should know that the Supreme Court heard and rejected a challenge to the corporate contribution ban brought by an ideological non-profit corporation, in a case called FEC v. Beaumont.That is, the most sympathetic corporation imaginable asked the Court to find the contribution ban unconstitutional. The Court said no.

Much criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United stems from the claim that the Constitution does not protect corporations because they are not “real” people. While it’s true that corporations aren’t human beings, that truism is constitutionally irrelevant because corporations are formed by individuals as a means of exercising their constitutionally protected rights. […]

In this article, CCP Academic Advisor Joel M. Gora, a Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, offers a through recounting of the outcomes of the much maligned Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The article defends the case by highlighting the Court’s endorsement of First Amendment protections for the political speech of corporate, labor, and non-profit entities. In doing so, the Court reversed statutes which had previously made it illegal for these groups to speak out in elections. Aside from several more minor immediate effects, Gora explains that the lasting legacy of Citizens United lies in its enthusiastic support for the First Amendment. While overviewing the arguments of the “reformers,” who wish to regulate the political speech of the aforementioned entities, the article illustrates the deficiencies of their viewpoints when weighed against long-standing First Amendment principles. Ultimately, Gora predicts that the Citizens United decision will enable the further erosion of current speech-chilling regulatory measures—a legacy of the “reformers'” stamp on the existing campaign finance landscape.